The Hector

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York

The Hector

11 F. Cas. 1018, 4 Blatchf. 199, 1858 U.S. App. LEXIS 489

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York

DecidedSeptember 10, 1858

StatusPublished

This text of 11 F. Cas. 1018 (The Hector) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Hector, 11 F. Cas. 1018, 4 Blatchf. 199, 1858 U.S. App. LEXIS 489 (circtndny 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

NELSON, Circuit Justice.

I agree with the court below, that the tug was in fault, and liable for the damage done to the lighter and her cargo. But I cannot agree that the ship in tow is also responsible. She was lashed firmly to the tug on the larboard side, and was under the exclusive command and direction of the master of that vessel; and I do not see, upon principle, that her owners should be made liable for the mismanagement in the navigation of the tug, any more than the owners of cargo on board of the colliding vessel. The case is different where the tug is under the command of the master of the tow. In that case, it is but the substitution of steam power for sails, in the navigation of the vessel by the master. I had occasion to examine this question in the case of The Express [Case No. 4,596], though the point was not directly involved in the decision. The decree below must be reversed as to the ship, and affirmed as to the tug.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NELSON, Circuit Justice.

I agree with the court below, that the tug was in fault, and liable for the damage done to the lighter and her cargo. But I cannot agree that the ship in tow is also responsible. She was lashed firmly to the tug on the larboard side, and was under the exclusive command and direction of the master of that vessel; and I do not see, upon principle, that her owners should be made liable for the mismanagement in the navigation of the tug, any more than the owners of cargo on board of the colliding vessel. The case is different where the tug is under the command of the master of the tow. In that case, it is but the substitution of steam power for sails, in the navigation of the vessel by the master. I had occasion to examine this question in the case of The Express [Case No. 4,596], though the point was not directly involved in the decision. The decree below must be reversed as to the ship, and affirmed as to the tug.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F. Cas. 1018, 4 Blatchf. 199, 1858 U.S. App. LEXIS 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-hector-circtndny-1858.